tv [untitled] July 3, 2011 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT
artists? >> the director of the program is here. she will help illustrate this better. >> that is true. i would like to go back to the selection panel. is a very competitive process. artists are selected for particular projects and we're usually looking for particular skills and abilities to address whatever the opportunity is for that particular project. that is with the panels are looking at. they are not necessarily looking at where somebody lives or other aspects of the artist. they are looking at their skill level. the reason i show you this averages because it does go up and down over years depending on but the project is. but consistently, we have had
6% to 75% bay area artists, not just san francisco, but bay area artists, which has longstanding been our priority for commissioning artists in this program. this last year, knowing your particular concern about local artists, we have made a greater effort out reach, limiting projects to just local artists and designing projects that i knew we could, with the talent pool here in san francisco, fill with local artists. supervisor chiu: i just wanted to say to my colleagues, when
i've first started looking in this, i was contemplating what we should have some sort of number ensuring some grants go to local artists and i am heartened the numbers of dreamt significantly and look forward to the trend continuing -- had jumped cygnus' him -- had jumped significantly. supervisor mirkarimi: to that point, similarly on my mind, i was wondering if we should seriously consider legislation like our local hiring policy that we should have a policy that prioritizes the grand distribution for local artists? i don't believe we are quite at that stage because there has been some marketable improvement in dissemination of grants to local artists. but in my district and many of our districts, it is home to a very sizable community and one
that often goes unnoticed, but one we want to keep nurturing as best as we possibly can. many of us have opened our offices at 4 exhibits to feature local artists. we feel like we're doing our part in some way to promote the local arts, so we like to see through the grant program that underscores this effort. if we have to legislate this commitment, that is something i would seriously want to consider. what i am hearing in this conversation is that it's improving in the right direction and it makes it unnecessary. that is important to note as well. >> thank you for your concern, supervisor mirkarimi. it is something san francisco can take a great deal of pride in. is a cultural capital at its home to many different artists, visual arts and particular.
we have to be mindful that san francisco nationally was one of the first to adopt the art in richmond ordinance. -- the arts in richmond ordinance. that helped hold municipalities across the nation. we are looked at as a leader in this field and one of the things i would caution, and i would love for the supervisor to keep in mind, is that competition for public art is an international competition. the artists who actually live here with us are competing for projects in albuqueue, completing for projects in texas and across the country, new york, and they're often successful. if we take a protectionist posture, that might be something that might be emulated in other communities across the country and could backfire on our artists and their ability to win commissions in other places.
supervisor mirkarimi: i agree with you and that is not worth what this conversation to go. when people come to san francisco, i think they have a different impression about our reputation and our ability to earn that reputation of being very supportive of the arts. i don't mean the primary art institutions, many underground, alternative art institutions where there is a healthy recognition both by city government and by our funding mechanisms. i think it is improving quite a bit, but the feedback i often get from people, such as some of the people visiting san francisco and to have made san francisco their new home, is that they are let down or underwhelmed by that commitment from city hall. to that point, i have to say i'm really impressed and delighted to see the level of street art
going out brown san francisco and some of the most distressed areas. near the mid market area of the street art, that is great. i love checking it out and i tell people that the public are out there, it is worthy of its own tour so that people can check out the public art installations, especially in the central part of san francisco. >> the final point i want to make about local artists is we have a granting program of which only san francisco artists receive those grants. over $2 million in grants we generate, that we allocate to the local arts community and many individual artists. that is a portion i would love to see increased in years to come.
one of the things many people don't realize is san francisco is one of the few government agencies in the country that still gives individual grants to individual artists. the federal government, because of controversy and censorship pullback from that almost a decade ago. that has hurt our artists and artists nationally. that is a point the city can take a lot of pride in. supervisor kim: to follow-up on this, i'm interested in this issue of how we support local artists. there are many ways to look at it, whether we are holding workshops for training programs for artists in san francisco were looking at the cultural centers that we sponsor and showcase local artists and ensure local artists exhibitions. there are multiple ways of looking at it, not just in terms of a local lands. but we do have to find a way to
support our artists. many of the move to new york or los angeles because they feel like there is not enough support for the arts here. even minnesota has amazing state infrastructure supporting their artists. i'm interested as to how other cities and states support artists and we might want to look at so we did not go down what you are warning about, which is it could hurt our artists if we start to establish some sort of percentage. >> now that we are on this topic, one of the areas that has been a great concern to me since i arrived three and a half years ago is the expense of having a space to create in san francisco is higher than just about everywhere else. the effect of that has driven artists out of the city, and to many surrounding areas, sometimes across the country. i would love to see an initiative that would help encourage the creation of some
parts incubators were simple, affordable spaces could be made available to artists so they can rehearse, they can perform, they can create, and it is affordable. there are models out there for creating these affordable, creative work spaces and arts incubators. i would love to see if the city could not make an initiative in this area. supervisor kim: i know we have looking at that for local manufacturing because of the cost of rent in the city. i would be very interested in that. >> finally, you had some questions about the pounding of the cultural centers. the staff went through great lengths to give the a comprehensive picture of the to the cultural centers, both physical and virtual, and what
the sources of that funding is. it is hard because there are different city agencies that do support the cultural centers. we are the closest to becoming a central gathering place for this information. we're giving a total picture of the past few years of the cultural centers, with their sources are, and what the total far. i hope that can help eliminate the questions you were concerned about four. -- you were concerned about before. supervisor chiu: i was told the asian cultural center and the queerer center was not receiving the same funding for other places and it has been difficult to get the data of exactly how much money is being provided to the centers. but we now have the data in
front of us. in fiscal year 2011, the other centers i was referring to receive anywhere from 600 to a million dollars apiece. compare that to the clear center and the -- the queer center, the numbers are going down. what these other centers, the numbers are going up. in some arts, you almost have it $100,000 increase. in my mind, this is exactly reflective of the anecdotal information i've received and we need to think about all little bit more equity to ensure all our communities are being served. >> if the arts commission can play a role in this area, we are thrilled to do so. supervisor chiu: you appear to have made decisions that continue to reinforce the differences in funding.
tell me about that. >> this is a historical pattern of funding. i'm going to let the director of the program has been with the program for about a decade explain it. >> thank you. i will do my best to answer your question. the funding for the cultural centers -- it was 1997 when legislation was passed to fund the cultural centers. at that time, there had been hope and anticipation that was referred to as a virtual centers would in time, over the years, be able to move into permanent basis. for various economic reasons, it's obvious why that was not able to happen. we have tried to maintain consistent funding threat the years. as the cultural centers take a reduction, it is spread equally
between the buildings as well as the cultural centers we referred to as virtual. i want to remind to the four buildings we have, these are very large buildings ranging from 14,000 square feet, which is the bayview opera house, to 32,000 square feet of the african-american art and culture complex. the discrepancies see is based on capacity. the virtual centers to not have physical spaces and historically, they did more festival programming unless year-round programming. so the allocation that goes to the four buildings includes all of their staffing, additional costs of maintaining a building. the numbers we gave you do not include any additional revenue for facilities. we just showed to the operational budget without any facility.
supervisor chiu: i thought of the facility costs were included, it might make sense, but these numbers are just operational? >> there are required to the lease agreement and grant agreement, the four buildings must maintain a full-time facility manager as part of our lease agreement. and the staffing costs are included, but we did not include any capital. supervisor chiu: that seems troubling to me. if this is just based on operating expenses -- the asian- american community only gets 6% of your total funding. i'm still trying to understand why is it -- how do you and at justifying that given the community that we serve and wanting to make sure we are fairly funding the various diverse communities we have in the city? >> i think it is a fair
question. the pattern of the allocation is a historical pattern of allocation. i think it's within the purview of both the mayor's office and the supervisors to look at the city's policy at the way these funds are allocated. that's a fair question. the arts commission has launched two studies to look at the needs of the asian american cultural community and the need of the latino cultural community. the studies were launched in response to the demographic information the census has given us. we anticipate being able to provide the supervisors and other public officials with the results of these studies in the months to come. based on the information you
have in your hands, a very thorough analysis of capacity, needs, and opportunities, i think it's time for the city to sit and think about its allocation policy. supervisor chiu: i just want to say to our colleagues that we ought to think about whether there are minor budget changes we to make to reflect more fairness in the process and to our director's point, i think the legislation from 1997, 14 years later, feels a bit outdated. certainly with regards to the asian-pacific islander cultural center as well as the queer cultural center which serves a very significant part of our city. we need to do a bit of work there to revise the legislation are changeups of the funding formulas and equities -- and inequities that currently exist. supervisor chu: thank you for
your presentation with regards to the cultural centers. i know it has long been an issue with the city in terms of how we resource existing physical structures and centers that we have. it is a conversation or tapping, but let's not lose perspective of the other resources available, perhaps not on the city's budget. we do have an asian art museum and many cultural institutions in chinatown. let's think about some of these larger areas and how we can work with these organizations to provide what is we're looking for. >> thank you. supervisor chu: the arts commission did not have any recommendation with regard to cuts, so why don't we move forward to the fine arts museum? >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the director of the fine arts museum in san francisco and
want to begin by thanking the city and county of san francisco for its support of the fine arts museum which includes the museum in golden gate park and the palace of honor in lincoln park. i think the supervisors' budget analysts and mayor's budget analysts and other departments which have participated in the construction of our budget and would say over the past few days we have worked with those analysts to come to an understanding and acceptance of a reduction in our budget of $41,950. we do accept that, supervisors. >> madam chair, the number is $41,931 of general fund reductions for your consideration. supervisor chu: given the department is in agreement, can we take that without objection? thank you. we can take that without
i'm happy answer any questions. supervisor chu: the department is in agreement with those cuts? >> yes. >> of that 576911: hundred 64,00743 our general fund reductions. there is a recommended return to the general fund -- excuse me, that is to the recreation and park fund, 35,343. that's not a general fund. the total general fund reductions are $164,743. total reductions are 612,000 tutored 54. supervisor chu: with regard to the service equipment, there was a proposed cut to software.
can you speak about that and why you are in agreement? >> this was funding that was approved for the department to implement a software package which is associated with our work order system, which we know as tma. the application would be on hand-held devices and allow our staff, carpenters, plumbers, ironworkers, to close out or quarters when they are in the field. if there's a broken toilet, they go out and fix it, they can close the work order and move on to the next item without having to come back to the yard in golden gate park. we thought it would be worthwhile in terms of increasing efficiency for the department.
in terms of why we agreed with the budget analyst on this, it felt like something we were not going to be able to come to agreement on. so we let ago. supervisor chu: in terms of the need and cost, the department as saying your expenses going to be about $180,000? if you reduce by $85,000, will you be able to go forward with this software? >> that is the total cost of the new software package. without the funding, we cannot implement the application. supervisor chu: currently in your business practice colony have plumbers or others going to make repairs throughout the city, when they finish a job any particular location, have to go back to the art at golden gate park? >> correct. our structural maintenance yard is in golden gate park.
generally, what they do, it is instead of coming back after the completion of every job, they leave themselves a space of time at the end of the day and come back and do all other data entry into the computers at the art. essentially, this would eliminate that need and they would have additional time over the course of the day to be of repairing things. this is an efficiency measure. supervisor chu: this is a coit- approved project? >> is. >>supervisor chu: i would like o leave this item open in terms of the maintenance service equipment. given where the department is, i know you are short staffed in terms of partners, custodians, and everything else. to the extent we can keep people in the field as opposed to
having to travel back and forth to close out projects, i get a good investment. colleagues, if we can take the remaining balance of closeout for projects worth $35,342, take the remaining balance of the recommendations except for the $85,000 in terms of the software work, can we do that without objection? >> thank you, supervisor. i appreciate that. supervisor chu: the next apartment is the children and families commission. -- the next department is the children and families commission. >> i'm the deputy director. supervisor chu: there were a number of recommendations provided to the department. that was something we could not take here. i'm wondering if these are items
you agree with that would to be making those adjustments to your budget? >> yes. supervisor chu: there is about 48,000 recommended by the budget analysts. is there is a neat -- is there anything you would ask? >> i'm sorry, i was just in discussions, but my understanding is the department disagrees with our recommendations. -- i'm sorry -- our recommended reductions are $48,992. this is not general fund and if the department incurs called the board of supervisors can implement the recommendations. supervisor chu: given the department does agree, can we take this without objection? the other conversation is run the question of reserves. that's something i would like to keep open as a conversation. i don't think we're going to come to any conclusion today about it, but given the fact
with the state is not going to be sweeping the reserves we thought and given to have a balance of about $9 million currently, even without assuming a large suite originally, perhaps there is room to talk with your commission about how we might be able to appropriate or use that fund indicated for first five. we look forward to this conversations in the coming days and perhaps months. the department of public health. >> in good morning, supervisors. -- good morning, supervisors.
i have some information for supervisor kim on our income -- on our hiv prevention measure. some of the changes was to incorporate some data and evaluation, quality assurance, and as well as trying to provide services directly without having a contract and the services did not increase, they stayed the same. we also have some information about the security issue.
to supervisor mirkarimi, we did to a survey of the hospitals in the area and through california and as you can see, several of them have some hybrid processes between sheriff's, a contract, or hospital employee. many of them have contracts and one of them have police. supervisor wiener: thank you. this is helpful. for the hybrids, particularly los angeles might be a good comparison.
-- riverside, which might also be a decent comparison. do we have any sense how they do it in terms of one thing i know that comes to mind is whether you could have a private security as a general matter and then have surest the peace in the highest risk areas such as the emergency room or the psych ward where there might be a high-risk to staff? >> i think that happens in los angeles and the riverside county area. there is a precinct station at the hospital cost that is how the work that out. supervisor wiener: i know this has been a discussion with the sheriff's department about whether it would be possible to have the